Topic awaiting preservation: Banning of Muslim headscarves in French schools? (Page 3 of 3)

DL-44:

quote:

---

By making laws which limit the freedom of expression of one's religion, and by making laws which inhibit the practice of one's religion, you have already crossed that line

---

Sharing an opinion and imposing it are two different things. Fortunately the first one is authorized while the second is convicted.

quote:

---

You are supporting something, which - if turned the other way around - you would condemn!

---

Well that's not what I said. I said "I would consider to take some serious actions ( public demonstration, leaving the country, ... ) if that government forced me to wear it all the time." which is far different from the hypotetical law you and Bugimus suggested. And again, ( and again, and ... ) the project of law only talk about the single context of public schools.



[This message has been edited by poi (edited 02-15-2004).]

Religious intolerance in France

• Overview of the Counter-cult movement
• 1981: Cult hysteria begins in France
• Prohibiting wearing of headscarves by Muslim women
• Taxing the Jehovah's Witnesses
• Other cases
• Government anti-sect mission
• Recent developments

France does not have the monopoly of "religious intolerance" : RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE IN THE U.S., AND THE REST OF THE WORLD.

I've just noted the following sentence about the Jehovah's Witnesses :
They have a separate company that prints and distributes magazines and books. The latter pays taxes to the state as a commercial organization. But until now, the main religious organization has been free of taxes.

wtf it's absolutely normal that the printing company pay the same taxes as any other other company. If it was the cultual association who printed their publications itself it'd be exempted of taxes like any religious organization. A company IS a company NOT a religious association.

Regarding the cult hysteria and various anti-sects missions I think the mass murder-suicides and mental manipulation of the sects in the 80's and 90's gave us some solid reasons to get and/or consolidate informations about them.

I prefer this British suggestion - I think we need more clear thinking lessons in school:

quote:

---

Non-religious RE lessons idea

Religious education - compulsory in English schools - should include discussion of non-religious beliefs, a think tank report suggests.

The Institute of Public Policy Research (IPPR) said students needed to acquire skills to discuss ethical dilemmas.

Religious education (RE) is not part of the national curriculum but by law all schools have to provide it.

Only now is the QCA curriculum regulator drawing up a national framework for teaching RE.

Weekly attendance

An IPPR report coming out on Monday says RE should be widened to include non-religious belief systems such as atheism, agnosticism and humanism.

It should encourage the study of philosophical and ethical problems and teach young people to evaluate evidence and argument.

Even the name should go, to be replaced by something like "religious, philosophical and moral education". In Scotland, for example, it is "religious and moral education".

IPPR senior research fellow Ben Rogers said: "Now that only seven per cent of Britons attend a weekly religious service, many are arguing for the abolition of RE as a compulsory subject - we disagree.

"RE has an important place in the curriculum - but only if it's brought up to date."

'Bias'

It was important that people learned to converse with those of different faiths and think critically about their own.

"Dropping religion from the syllabus, or banning the expression of religious beliefs from schools, as in France, won't make religious strife go away - if anything it will exacerbate it.

"Religious education can play an important part in combating prejudices."

But too often it had "a pro-religious and in some cases anti-science bias".

The IPPR said there were almost as many RE syllabuses in England as there were education authorities, with each opting to draw up their own.

The QCA plans to consult widely on the content of the new framework.

"IPPR believes it is vital that not just teachers and faith groups, but children, parents and the wider teaching community are consulted and involved."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/education/3486537.stm

Published: 2004/02/15 00:11:18 GMT

© BBC MMIV

---

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org

quote:

---

A company IS a company NOT a religious association.

---

poi: Tell that to the Church of Scientology.

metahuman: I'm [edit : after metahuman's reply ] not [/edit] sure to take your words with the sense you meant, but I find that funny.
With the affairs of extorction of funds around the Church of Scientology, that religious movement have a bad image in France.

The laws of 1905 are clear on the way and requirements to declare a religious movement and the advantages it can have.



[This message has been edited by poi (edited 02-16-2004).]

I know that France gives the CoS a hard time. That's a given.

Emps, that article is not too bad, actually. Teaching more about how to learn from each other's differences cannot be a bad thing. As long as we don't suppress religious thought in favor of secular and visa versa, we may be on the right track. And I completely agree that simply closing our eyes and hoping that will solve problems will not work. I think it is better to face the problems we have with living in pluralistic societies and give our children tools to live together with less friction.

. . : slicePuzzle

Bugs: Exactly - teaching kids to be able to assess different ideas and draw their own conclusions about things has to be a good thing.

___________________
Emps

The Emperor dot org